Change Your Image
soldaten116
Reviews
Lebanon (2009)
Perhaps the worst tank crew in all of history
I would have given this a one star but in the end, I don't want to discourage someone from making a real movie about this genre. This has got to be the worst tank crew in the history of armored warfare. Now, I know some IDF tankers personally. They consider themselves elite. The general IDF conscripts are sometimes bad but not the Armored Corps or their paratroop units. Their bravery and skill defended their borders against much larger and desperate tank assaults from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Sometimes simultaneously. This crew couldn't hold back a team of boy scouts armed with slingshot. I am going to see if they'll comment on this but this movies is an insult to that bravery.
First off, this no one obeys orders. The gunner is a coward who follows his own troops with his gun sight (camera trick use d to film the action I know but it totally fails in that it is not what he's supposed to be doing, at all) and searching for targets. When he is presented with a target, not once does he actually fire on command. I am not debating his target opportunities, those were so cliché and predictable I wanted to turn the movie off.
A commander is supposed to be looking for targets and leading the tank. Two things he does not do during the entire movie. The loader is insubordinate to the point where I was hoping someone would just shoot him or, at least, kick his ass.
After a while I wanted the Captain Jamil to just shoot them all and I could not blame him in the least for what he did.
Too many other unbelievable things going on here. What tank commander allows just anyone to open the hatch. First off you can't unless someone inside unlocks it. You can't just walk up to a tank on a battlefield and open it like a car. Second. I want to be in that tank. They had enough room for a prisoner, interrogator and at one point a dead body? Who allows that?! Put it on the outside in a Body bag or under a blanket. Jeez. They had so much extra room they could put a bloody body in there ? That had to be the biggest turret I've ever seen. I actually felt like moving in, they seemed to have enough space. I did not feel claustrophobic at all. The crew's treatment of the tank should have been a court martial offense. Throwing trash on the floor, rounds lying in the oil/water mix, crap everywhere. You don't leave junk or trash lying all over your Armored Vehicle. A) There's no room and B) you don't want that junk to get in your way when your fighting.
Finally the "reflective" or "contemplative" camera style of just leaving the lens on an object for 5-10 minutes at a time (especially at the beginning) was sooo annoying I had a hard tome not hitting the FF button just to get through it.
Bottom line, see a movie like "The Beast" if you want to see tank crew action. Even Denzel does a good job in his Courage Under Fire movie. Skip this, it has not point, no action and no logic. This was not, anywhere near, and accurate representation of the war, of fighting men in a tank, of anything really. What a waste of a great topic for the sake of "Art".
300 (2006)
Awesome entertainment
This movie blew me away but I warn you - it's not for everyone. The violence is glorified and bloody and the machismo is over the top. But I liked it -as a former US Marine I identified with the military culture and warrior bravado it was fun and made me cheer. Very few movies make you want to shout out loud these days. . All the homophobes who are critical of the movies portrayal of the Spartans need to grow up. The women were no less toned and attractive so what's the big deal? First off, it's a movie and doesn't claim to be an accurate history lesson. Second, the whole purpose of the movie is to entertain and visually please with photography, images, costumes, etc. On that level, this movie succeeds wildly. All this movie inspired me to do after watching its scantily clad actors was to go work out. Being in my upper 30's and married I realize a body like that takes a lot of work and should be appreciated.
This is a niche or genre movie that lovers of fine artsy films will probably hate. The plot is...well, there really is no plot. The acting is over the top and the images are enhanced. If you like artful, choreographed violence, stunning photography and visual images, and movies that glorify the warrior culture you're in for a real treat. I look forward to the DVD with features and maybe even a directors cut. My biggest regret was having to watch this movie on a small 19" screen with a mono-speaker. This movie has huge presence and I hope IMAX brings it back for a second or repeated screenings.
Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds (2001)
Very entertaining
Game is based on the Age of Empires II engine. Very stable game and easy to manipulate. It's simple strategy and user interface make it easier for young users to play. My 8 year old nephew started about a year ago and now for family get together we all get on a LAN and play. A load graphics load means many players can play with little to no lag. Still, it is visually pleasing with fantastic sound effects and music.
This is truly a timeless game and I've been playing it for almost 5 years. Very few games have that kind of appeal and staying power. For it's simplicity, ease of play and fun factor, it has not equal even today.
The only drawback is that single play is limited. One you figure out the computer's basic strategy, it's easy to defeat. It retains it's playability only in the multiplayer mode. For that it is worth the price you pay for any copy you may still be able to find.
Jarhead (2005)
A movie review and an an apology
I was wrong - Wrong about the movie and wrong about the book. Swofford is a whiny malcontent, he may even be a coward, but he was 100% right on. I don't agree with his conduct and some of the things he did or said. I let my personal feelings about the man get in the way of the truth and the truth is this movie is about as accurate as anything I have ever seen about the modern Marine Corps. Do I like how it was portrayed? No. Is it an accurate portrayal? Yes. The movie and the book contain embellishments. Between Swofford and Hollywood, the movie wasn't how I remembered it. The details had been changed, sometimes dramatically and I got wrapped up in that instead of concentrating on what the movie/book were trying to say. It's not so good watch a movie about your life knowing the details have been changed to help the story along or the movie producers' life easy. I have a personal stake in this movie and in the Gulf War and I forget to be objective and intellectually honest with myself.
I am also a 2/7, GW veteran. When I saw the book in the store I couldn't believe it. So I bought it, read it and then threw it away because I misunderstood it. I didn't see it for what it was the truth, and if there's one thing we all know the truth hurts. War is a destructive and corrosive event and no matter what happens, you will be affected by it for the rest of your life. Lack of action or not, no man or woman can come out of it the same as they went in it. A good war movie doesn't have to be about death and destruction; it just has to show what war does to human beings. Swofford had put the essence of that into his book and his movie. Both are masterpieces and you are a gifted writer. Thanks you for making me confront my own demons about the Marines and the GW. For the first time, I have put those events into perspective in my life.
You and I would not have gotten along in the USMC. That's fine as we both know there are a lot of Marines we both didn't like. You probably would not have liked me either. I was a smart ass college drop out seeking some sort of reckoning with my plush suburban life. The USMC slapped the heck(stronger word originally inserted) out of me and made me a man. I owe my entire existence and success in life to what I learned in the USMC. You are convinced that the USMC destroys more than it builds. I think the USMC forces people to grow up and be who they were meant to be. Criminals realize they are criminals. The insane were always there, the USMC just brings it out. I don't think the USMC makes either. I believe you think the USMC does. We differ on a fundamental level. So be it.
I'm sorry about throwing away your book. I'll go out and buy another copy and the movie too. They'll both go on their respective shelves where they belong. I gave this movie a 1 when I first saw it. Sorry Swoff, I was wrong to do that. I changed it to an 8 because, now admit it, you took a few liberties here and there. And what was with the silly shooting scene at the end of the movie?? Did they pay you extra to let that in?
Cinderella Man (2005)
Superb movie, even if a bit flawed
Let me start by saying: This was a good movie - A very good movie. I will put it on my Christmas/Birthday wish list. I haven't really seen a lot of Depression era movies so I don't have a lot of experience in that area to judge. Ron Howard does an excellent job of bringing what I would assume it to be, back to life. I never empathized or sympathize with the men and women from that time as much as I do now. You get a good sense of how desperate times were and how good, hard working and decent people tried to survive it. It was a very powerful representation of life back then and very moving.
Oh yeah, this is a boxing movie. So a once great boxer hits the bricks and is given a second chance. He runs with it and succeeds beyond anyone's imagination. There's the uber-villain Champ boxer who plays dirty and the self centered, cold and cruel promoter of the fight too. All of the elements are here for a solid boxing movie that you've seen before. Only you haven't. Not like this. I won't go into how and spoil it for you it's that this boxing drama is not a copy cat of it's predecessors. It was similar in format but not the same.
I reserve my biggest criticism for Ron Howard's portrayal of Max Baer. I thought it was unnecessarily harsh and didn't need to be presented like that. Max actually only killed one man in the ring. Doctors only attributed the other in theory to him. The death at his hands of one opponent was a heavy burden for Max and he regularly gave his winning purses to the family of the man he killed. He suffered emotionally for it the rest of his life according to friends and family. He was considered a professional and a gentleman. He was an imposing figure and his reputation for strong boxing should have been enough of an obstacle. Villain-oozing him with the death threats and trash talking was not true to his character. I know it makes for better movie suspense but to me it tainted the last fight and I had to keep telling myself to relax, they had to sell movie tickets too.
Bottom line. Go see this movie but do not do any research on Braddock or anyone of his opponents. It is entertainment, not a documentary. As entertainment it is spectacular. History and boxing buffs may gruff at the interpretation. They were right on the mark when they said, "Based on a true story."
Hudson Hawk (1991)
A good Saturday afternoon movie
Some movies you like and you just can't explain it. The guy next to you is shouting "Garbage!" and you are in the aisles laughing your a** off.
OK so the acting is overdone. News flash. It is supposed to be! It's all overdone! The Richard Grant and Sandra Bernhard do a superb evil duo impression. Danny Aiello and Bruce are constantly getting into and out of impossible situations and having fun and being funny while doing it. The bottom line here is that I don't think Bruce Willis intended this to be a serious film. It was a joke from the beginning and it provided a host of great and memorable laughs. When Bruce is on the hospital gurney and catches a cigarette, has a puff and then grimaces "Ewww, Menthol" and throws it away. I nearly split my side. To a non-smoker that probably isn't funny. As a former smoker and hater of menthol cigarettes I thought it was classic! Bottom line, the humor is subtle for this film. It relies on you to suspend your reality and you'll have a great time. Try to pick apart its plot holes and improbable situations and you won't. Take it for what it is, one man's sense of humor. Personally I think Bruce Willis has a great sense of humor. I get it. Do you?
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Kingdom of Boredom
First off let me say the trailer for this movie had me so jerked up for a movie about the crusades I probably set my expectations too high. That said KoH is a worthy effort and I admire Ridley Scott for tackling this era of humanity. There are few offerings in this genre. Don't count the Rings trilogy or any other fantasy movie. This was a movies based in a real historical context.
So I gave it a seven for the visual experience. This was amazing. The costumes and cinematography were wonderful. This move made it on eye candy alone.
The acting and story line, well that's the hit here. Orlando Bloom just doesn't have the screen presence needed to pull off his character. He's supported wonderfully by a great cast but I just don't buy his portrayal of the blacksmith turned Baron. It's not all his fault, the writers didn't provide him with a convincing storyline either. Speak of which, the story just didn't move very fast or smoothly. I wound up just not caring about half the characters, especially the Queen.
The last portion of this movie I found disappointing was it's portrayal of Christianity. For me, I thought it was wholly unfair. Every religious figure in this movie is a coward and everyone either loses their faith or uses it to gain power. They were burning Nobles and peasants alike at the stake for heresy at this time. Everyone gets away with blasphemy and heresy all throughout this movie. I just found it unrealistic and more of a modern view on religion that back in 1183. In Medieval times, religion was everything. Christian or Muslim, you just didn't speak out against it, at least not in public in front of everyone. It ruled their lives and caused unspeakable brutal acts to be committed true enough, but I felt its portrayal here was a bit slanted.
The amateur historian in me enjoyed the experience. Its one man's version of the crusades and you could make any number of other "personal" visions of this era in time if you wish. This is definitely not a date night movie or something to impress your religious in-laws with. Watch it with guarded judgment and you'll enjoy it for what it is.
Taegukgi hwinalrimyeo (2004)
I gave it an 8 because...
It had all the hallmarks of a foreign film. Overacting, soap opera storyline and cheesy ending.
I gave it an eight because despite the above, it was a fine depiction of the horror and violence of the Korean War. I like how it stuck with the Korean side and resisted the temptation to show Americans: A very risky move. Having more American involvement would have given it a broader appeal in the States. However the movie is well made enough that it could and did stand very well on it's own merits. The effects are the equals if not better (in some cases) than contemporary American movies. The cinematography is wonderful and the props are largely gear is authentic This is not a masterpiece. To see one of those, please view Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Winter War or Stalingrad. Some serious overacting and some cheesy scenes that have you reaching for the fast forward button, hold it back. Some of the scenes, I have to say, are down right painful to watch. Fortunately the movie does not dwell on those scenes and it moves along fast. For every cheese ball scene there are plenty of powerful and well-scripted scenes.
What this is, is, a very good representation of the brutality of the Korean War and how it was much more of a Civil War than a war between nations. It is a great "anti-war" film that has the ability to bring out very strong emotions despite some overacting and over the top melodrama. You hate both sides equally at different times and you are left with the keen sense of the utter futile waste that war is. For that, the movie deserves a well done/Bravo! It deserves an 8.
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
Classic
This movie got it right. The perfect blend of realism and storytelling. Really now, who didn't like this movie? If you thought it was boring, go take your Ritalen and watch it again. No, I am not being mean to anyone with ADHD, my point is you need to slow your life down to more than just a few sound bytes from MTV. This is a take your time and smell the roses kind of movie. Watch it with a good bottle of wine and I swear you can almost smell the salt air.
This kind of movie only comes along once in a while. You have to appreciate like a fine wine and it will grow on you through subsequent viewings. My only suggestion to those that didn't like it is try it again. Enjoy it, own it.
The Devil's Arithmetic (1999)
This has gotta be the dumbest move about the holocaust ever made
Unbelievably bad acting. This is an overly sentimental piece of drivel that was made purely to cash in on a traditionally easy theme to make money on. The Holocaust/WWII. Using the time travel thing just made it even cornier. That was done as far back as the Twilight Zone in the 60's. There were zero original ideas in this movie and many blatant scene copies of better movies. It's painfully obvious the makers neither cared about the history or the people that survived and basically slapped them and Germany in the face with this poor recreation.
Personally I found it insulting to watch and soon after they arrived at the death camp I had to turn it off. The bad uniforms and pathetically poor German accents were painful. Kirsten Dunce's overacting was embarrassing.
The Jewish league should sue for being shamelessly exploited in a bad TV movie and get whatever profits came from this movie, then give anyone who voted higher than a 2 for this movie a free trip to the Holocaust Memorial in Washington DC, Auschwitz, the Wiesenthal Center or the Imperial War museum. The German government should sue and get whatever money it can from the producers for beating this dead horse long after it's expired. The German government and people deserve better than this. If you are going to drag them through the mud again at least have the decency to do it right. I mean seriously, there are much better and more accurate movies out there. Why did they even make this?? Most of the others have been edited and shown on television so it can't be that there was a need to get a movie out to that audience. I wouldn't want my kids to see this version because it dumbs the whole tragedy down so much they won't understand the brutality and scope of the holocaust from this. To me it just looked fake. At one point I even found myself thinking that it didn't look like they had it that bad. I found myself laughing at the stereotypes, bad script and poor editing. Let's not even discuss the cinematography. My kid could do better with a Sony hand-held. I am thinking the budget on this move must have been dismally low.
If you're too young to understand the violence of the event then wait till you're older. If you think that dumbing down the holocaust just to get the message out on TV is acceptable, you're selling yourself and mankind in general short. Giving this movie a high mark just because its about the holocaust is like giving George Bush an A for effort in Iraq. You should just watch the history channel if you want to know more about this and are too lazy to open a book.